Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[matmacwc]

Worn out, tired heros that I can tip my hat to. Never have so few, seen so much, and we wonder why they leave for Home Depot jobs.

Edited March 19, 2015 by matmacwc

[Magellan]

https://video.foxnews.com/v/4176713618001/how-critical-are-drones-in-the-war-on-terror/?#sp=show-clips

[guineapigfury]

https://video.foxnews.com/v/4176713618001/how-critical-are-drones-in-the-war-on-terror/?#sp=show-clips

Not sure what the point of the interview was. Maybe we're looking for some good press before the derpfest commences when Good Kill hits the theaters later this year.

[McDonut]

Yeah, that's exactly it. Good Kill will say it's "based on a true story", which basically means 10% rule, but worse.

Cue next wave of Global Hawk baby killer protesters.

[MooseAg03]

For those 11Ms stuck at Creech, there are meetings tomorrow and Friday with HAF specifically for Alfa Tour Pilots who have not recatted. It seems only half of the base was notified. PM me if you want the details.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

Gen Welsh recently gave remarks about considering enlisted RPA pilots (ETA 1 Oct 16 if they decide to try it).

[Azimuth]

Gen Welsh recently gave remarks about considering enlisted RPA pilots (ETA 1 Oct 16 if they decide to try it).

The USAF did the E's instructing and and evaluating the O's back in the 90's with Weapon Directors and the first 13B's. Bringing back Warrant Officers to be RPA Pilots would be perfect.

[dvlax40]

would love to see the operational costs of a UAV vs a bronco.... and i mean FULL operating cost including satellite bandwidth....

[Marco]

tinfoil hat on.........

I foresee a future where the AF still can't keep up with the demand for drone operators. Eventually, Lockheed Martin/Boeing/General Atomics all step in to fulfil the demand for CAPs with contract pilots.

Already happening. There are RFP's out on

fbo.gov for RPA pilots and sensor operator service providers.

ETA: Siri don't spellz so good.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Marco

[FUEL]

would love to see the operational costs of a UAV vs a bronco.... and i mean FULL operating cost including satellite bandwidth....

Its not always about money. Persistence, reach-back, burn concern, and being places we don't want pilots are significant factors in platform selection as well. I'm obviously talking about ISR (what the Combatant Commanders are screaming for), not CAS. I understand the benefits of keep it simple stupid, and that the wide range of mission sets and acronyms that have been developed for them is doctrinally confusing. Gen Welsh harped on this in 2012:

"Our doctrinal terms are changing. What we're calling missions is changing. You guys who grew up flying CAS missions or interdiction missions, go try and see how many sub-derivatives there are of those things now. XCAS, XRCAS, INT, XINT. You can go and go and go and go. We do it for good reasons. We do it because we're well-intentioned. But I'm telling you, everybody doesn't understand what we're doing."

Trying to bring back the focus to core mission sets is great, especially from a PR standpoint and running with the narrative "only the Air Force can do what it does." However, keeping platforms in their own bubble of "designated" capabilities is not how we progress and the Predator wouldn't have a hellfire if we did. Mission sets blend as the kill chain shortens. Sure, the Bronco would be great and I'd rather fly it than be in a GCS, but it won't develop targets as well as the MQ-1/9. And if we want to finish those targets quickly, better to ensure the one that Finds/Fixes can also kill it. I think the Bronco would have a great roll in FID and COIN CAS, but ACC has decided it doesn't want a large stake in those mission sets and AFSOC has its own gray tail priorities. Plus, in AvFID, the country needs to buy their own planes to keep procurement fast and not have to deal with the foreign sales mess. That leaves CAS in a low threat, yet high CDE environment; for which ACC won't buy for exclusively or recognize is what "CAS" will be in the near future. In the name of simplicity the doctrine is holding us back, instead we really need some common sense.

[SurelySerious]

Most of the "CAS" you're talking about in Afghanistan isn't CAS, it's dynamic targeting using CAS procedures. The two should not be confused, but they have been. We have a CAS JP, we have DT MTTPs, and they should be used for their appropriate applications.

And satellite time is expensive. Very.

Edited May 29, 2015 by SurelySerious

[dvlax40]

And satellite time is expensive. Very.

Bingo!

[FUEL]

Most of the "CAS" you're talking about in Afghanistan isn't CAS, it's dynamic targeting using CAS procedures. The two should not be confused, but they have been. We have a CAS JP, we have DT MTTPs, and they should be used for their appropriate applications.

Completely agree, and I'm not sure why we don't. Maybe someone can shed some light on whether its a lack of training/trust on the RPA side to push for it or a lack of doctrinal fidelity by the higher ups.

So yes, CAS procedures have been used in lieu of SCAR, DT, etc. What doesn't change is the fact quality persistent ISR leads up to most of those procedures. My point is today and tomorrow's environments have to deal with time sensitive targets that randomly present themselves in time, location and type (IW/CAS/DT/SCAR). The A-10 doesn't suit this most of the time and there are limited set of scenarios in which the bronco would as well. Admittedly, in those scenarios of lengthy armed overwatch the Bronco, or for that matter the IOMAX and Super Tacano, would do a much better job for cheaper. Especially if we can get our allied countries to buy and field them, even if we have to go through the painful process of teaching them.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/25/the-small-planes-with-big-missiles-the-u-s-wants-to-give-to-yemen/

[Lawman]

C The A-10 doesn't suit this most of the time and there are limited set of scenarios in which the bronco would as well. Admittedly, in those scenarios of lengthy armed overwatch the Bronco, or for that matter the IOMAX and Super Tacano, would do a much better job for cheaper. Especially if we can get our allied countries to buy and field them, even if we have to go through the painful process of teaching them.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/25/the-small-planes-with-big-missiles-the-u-s-wants-to-give-to-yemen/

It's funny you show a picture of the Combat Air Tractor.

It amazed me how hard the Phil's were sticking their fingers in their ears to ignore that aircraft while simultaneously copy/paste'ing the requirements for their new turbo prop light CAS aircraft program straight from the Super Tacano's sales brochure.

[dvlax40]

It's funny you show a picture of the Combat Air Tractor.

It amazed me how hard the Phil's were sticking their fingers in their ears to ignore that aircraft while simultaneously copy/paste'ing the requirements for their new turbo prop light CAS aircraft program straight from the Super Tacano's sales brochure.

The prob with the agcat are the landing gear interfering with the sensor sweep.

[HU&W]

The prob with the agcat are the landing gear interfering with the sensor sweep.

There will always be masking regions that have to minimized. That said, the ball should have been placed further back on the fuselage.

[zrooster99]

Its not always about money. Persistence, reach-back, burn concern, and being places we don't want pilots are significant factors in platform selection as well. I'm obviously talking about ISR (what the Combatant Commanders are screaming for), not CAS. I understand the benefits of keep it simple stupid, and that the wide range of mission sets and acronyms that have been developed for them is doctrinally confusing. Gen Welsh harped on this in 2012:

Trying to bring back the focus to core mission sets is great, especially from a PR standpoint and running with the narrative "only the Air Force can do what it does." However, keeping platforms in their own bubble of "designated" capabilities is not how we progress and the Predator wouldn't have a hellfire if we did. Mission sets blend as the kill chain shortens. Sure, the Bronco would be great and I'd rather fly it than be in a GCS, but it won't develop targets as well as the MQ-1/9. And if we want to finish those targets quickly, better to ensure the one that Finds/Fixes can also kill it. I think the Bronco would have a great roll in FID and COIN CAS, but ACC has decided it doesn't want a large stake in those mission sets and AFSOC has its own gray tail priorities. Plus, in AvFID, the country needs to buy their own planes to keep procurement fast and not have to deal with the foreign sales mess. That leaves CAS in a low threat, yet high CDE environment; for which ACC won't buy for exclusively or recognize is what "CAS" will be in the near future. In the name of simplicity the doctrine is holding us back, instead we really need some common sense.

Wait, are you saying a manned ISR asset can't find/fix/finish/exploit/provide POL/develop targets as well as an unmanned? I would beg to differ, if that is the case. I'm not disputing that the RPAs have their advantages...it basically comes down what capes you're looking for, but I've personally seen many scenarios where-in manned assets provided better target development.

[McDonut]

Or just put the pod on the wing and a GBU on the centerline.

[Ram]

That intake:

[FUEL]

Wait, are you saying a manned ISR asset can't find/fix/finish/exploit/provide POL/develop targets as well as an unmanned? I would beg to differ, if that is the case. I'm not disputing that the RPAs have their advantages...it basically comes down what capes you're looking for, but I've personally seen many scenarios where-in manned assets provided better target development.

Absolutely not, in my experience the MC-12 (and U-28) develop targets better by nature of the crew complement in the aircraft. Trying to translate that level of rapid communication in the RPA has been frustrating to say the least. Finishing isn't for discussion here, but having to bring in another aircraft isn't ideal for shortening the kill chain, but can definitely work just fine if something is on target with you. However, full spectrum target development/POL can be hard in 4 hour vuls and takes a lot of manpower/hardware compared to a 20 hr Pred mission. Not to mention manned might not be an option if there is a long transit required or in a place we don't have manned access period. My point was lower loiter times, burn concerns, logistics footprint and target access are likely negatives for an ISR/Light Attack blend (not all applicable to MC-12/U-28). Therefore, its hard to find a place for it in the inventory outside of AvFID (since we aren't giving a country RPAs) and, for a lack of a better term, IW/COIN CAS (which ACC has chosen not to bring the best solutions to the table, and AFSOC is sticking with gunships, not small planes).

[tac airlifter]

However, full spectrum target development/POL can be hard in 4 hour vuls and takes a lot of manpower/hardware compared to a 20 hr Pred mission. Not to mention manned might not be an option if there is a long transit required or in a place we don't have manned access period. My point was lower loiter times, burn concerns, logistics footprint and target access are likely negatives for an ISR/Light Attack blend (not all applicable to MC-12/U-28). Therefore, its hard to find a place for it in the inventory outside of AvFID (since we aren't giving a country RPAs) and, for a lack of a better term, IW/COIN CAS (which ACC has chosen not to bring the best solutions to the table, and AFSOC is sticking with gunships, not small planes).

you think manned ISR POL takes a lot of hardware/manpower over a 20 hour pred mission? Also, that 20 hour mission spends how long in transit? Compared to manned assets transiting 20 minutes? and you think logistics are lighter for RPA?

There is 1 place in the world right now where unmanned is covering down and manned isn't. There are multiple places where the reverse is true.

This isnt a pissing contest, I appreciate the significant benefits unmanned brings to the fight. But you're saying these things about target access and logistic limitations for manned ISR which you assume would apply to light attack; but it just isn't the case. Manned ISR is flexible and able to forward stage at austere locations- light attack would be the same; they could sit on the ground with a SAT radio and launch when the time is right. This is already happening. It sounds like you are projecting your experience in AFG across other fights and it doesn't fit.

[FUEL]

Not a pissing contest, I've pissed in/out of both in some, but obviously not all AORs. What I am saying is the pred/reaper loiter time carries an advantage of not putting boots on the ground where we don't want to show a large presence. I'm not saying light attack wouldn't fit some roles, and we can go back and forth naming missions it would be worse or better for. I don't think it would be good for long loiter for days and days of IMINT POL, and I think its a stretch to say its better to keep enough hardware in theater for manned ISR to do that too. Having constant surveillance and the ability to strike at any point during that is something RPAs bring to table, a lot. Not saying we do it better, but enable the US to do it a lot.

There is 1 place in the world right now where unmanned is covering down and manned isn't.

I think I can name more, but a "place" is a subjective term. Parts of countries/AOR versus other parts may drive up this number, especially if the manned asset is in for a long commute as well and can't pull 24 hour coverage. This is the access piece I'm arguing, it may not be totally inaccessible just difficult to pull 24 hr coverage without a huge footprint or wasting a lot of manned ISR that could be used better elsewhere.

I'm not sure how I see light attack sitting on the ground SAT radio waiting for the right time is good for the kill chain timeline in a DT situation. Not if assets on station have strike capabilities, . If its on call for doing armed overwatch/CAS in an IW/COIN environment, that is something its going to exponentially better than an RPA. My questions are how do we fit it in the inventory for that type of mission. Especially, when more of what we do is DT/counterterrorism and less and less counterinsurgency. How do you convince AFSOC or ACC to get the tenacity to fund it? Teach me how light attack can be argued for DT in counterterrorism over manned/unmanned ISR with strike capability in today's austere budget and I'll do it until my last dying breath. Bigger payloads is becoming more of an issue, so that is a start. Pragmatically, I see using it as AvFID as the easiest way to fight for it.

[guineapigfury]

I've done both (MC-12 & MQ-9), and IMO manned ISR is the better solution most of the time. It's probably cheaper*, more flexible, deals better with weather, isn't confined to a soda straw view, has vastly superior SA and also has the added benefit of not being the worst "flying" assignment in the USAF**.

* As mentioned that satellite time isn't cheap.

** This plays into the cost argument, as billions of dollars in pilot training costs have walked out the door rather than fly or continue to fly RPAs.

[zrooster99]

Absolutely not, in my experience the MC-12 (and U-28) develop targets better by nature of the crew complement in the aircraft. Trying to translate that level of rapid communication in the RPA has been frustrating to say the least. Finishing isn't for discussion here, but having to bring in another aircraft isn't ideal for shortening the kill chain, but can definitely work just fine if something is on target with you. However, full spectrum target development/POL can be hard in 4 hour vuls and takes a lot of manpower/hardware compared to a 20 hr Pred mission. Not to mention manned might not be an option if there is a long transit required or in a place we don't have manned access period. My point was lower loiter times, burn concerns, logistics footprint and target access are likely negatives for an ISR/Light Attack blend (not all applicable to MC-12/U-28). Therefore, its hard to find a place for it in the inventory outside of AvFID (since we aren't giving a country RPAs) and, for a lack of a better term, IW/COIN CAS (which ACC has chosen not to bring the best solutions to the table, and AFSOC is sticking with gunships, not small planes).

Think you shacked it for the most part...loiter and willingness/ability to get lower (below clouds) have proven advantageous many times... Also when you add superior ball capes in some cases, the RPA may be the superior asset in some cases. CRM, TTP, WX penetration/avoidance, and the ability to look out the window and get the big picture stacks in favor of the manned asset. Won't discuss finish. I think logistics is debatable, but we can call that a push...

[dvlax40]

Think you shacked it for the most part...loiter and willingness/ability to get lower (below clouds) have proven advantageous many times... Also when you add superior ball capes in some cases, the RPA may be the superior asset in some cases. CRM, TTP, WX penetration/avoidance, and the ability to look out the window and get the big picture stacks in favor of the manned asset. Won't discuss finish. I think logistics is debatable, but we can call that a push...

Logistics debateAble? Ok I'm not one to throw stones but that shit dude. If you don't know the numbers look them up. bandwidth, maint, 50+ percent crash rate. The cadre of dudes task with control and retrieval.

If manned assets fell out of the sky and required so much shit and were so vulnerable and only were slightly better in very certain situations the Air Force would be part of the army again so fast your head would spin